Harvard digital philosopher David Weinberger thinks that everything is miscellaneous. He says that this is "the power of new disorder". But I disagree. My proof? The arguments of Weinberger and I aren't either miscellaneous or disordered. We have both written polemics about the future of information, mine a modernist defense of ontological order, his a postmodern embrace of ontological disorder. Our books came out within a week of the other. We are each other's shadow, covering the same ground, perplexed by the same dilemmas, struggling to interpret the same riddle about taxonomies of knowledge in the digital economy. We even work in the same place -- he in Cambridge (the Berkeley of the East Coast), me in Berkeley (the Cambridge of the West Coast).

So there's nothing miscellaneous or disordered about my dialectic with Weinberger. As the point and counterpoint guys on the digital future of knowledge, we've been paired together, binary characters affixed to one another, the red and green lights of the Internet revolution. You can see us arguing at San Francisco's Supernova event. You can see us arguing after our panel at Supernova. You can see us arguing on the august pages of the Wall Street Journal. And, if you have the good fortune to be in Amsterdam for the Cross Media conference in late September, you'll be able to hear us arguing there.

Could Weinberger exist without me? Could I exist with him? Is this a publisher's plot or just the public effluence of a bad marriage? Might we even be the same person, opposing sides of the same debate, arguing to generate sales of each other's books. Oh dear, another mainstream conspiracy theory. First Stalin and Hitler, then Rumsfield and Saddam Hussein, now Keen and Weinberger. Do you think That I should alert the blogosphere about it?